Split from Open Mic- Struggling With The Catholic Faith

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312580914' post='2282093']

It is not about what is right or good. Just what is necessary for a functioning society. Oppression will meet resistence which will create animosity, hatred and even wars.
[/quote]

So simply pragmatically one should not oppress others. I can see that too though I don't think it goes far enough to really ensure a safe or functioning society since there will be times when you can oppress others and not create wars or really animosity by pacifying them while they are still disenfranchised. What then? Society still will not be at its "ideal functioning" could one oppress another then or should one still not do it for other reasons?

I do agree people should not be oppressed but then how does one not classify the saying that there those who believe certain things, "religious outfits" which admittedly make up a large part of society (even if one does not think it is the majority), who should be kept out of civil life by "not interfering with law?" as oppression. I assume you mean "in the law-making process" when you say "law". However, if everyone is supposed to have a voice and you want to deny certain people a voice in the process, how is one not oppressing others/desire the removal of certain people's rights?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312541642' post='2281821']
I'd say it would be a very difficult decision for the parents to make, but it ought to be the parents decision, not government, not religious outfits.

BTW this is more of a hypothetical scenario rather than an analogy. No biggie, just thought I'd point out the difference.
[/quote]

I meant it to be an analogy to what abortion is, in case that wasn't clear

[mortify]

The abortion issue is an interesting one for personal reasons. I used to be staunchly pro choice in my younger years, and then I realized I had never given the issue much thought, lol. I guess my years in public school just molded my mind into looking at this issue a certain way. But when I began to analyze the issue myself, I recognized just how wrong it was. The fetus is not an arbitrary body part that a mother can just do away with, it is a separate and unique human being developing within her womb. Once you recognize that the fetus is an individual, we have to treat her as such. It is a moral maxim that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent, and you can't more innocent than that of a fetus! The idea of another person being able to take the life of an innocent, and that it is protected by the government, is a terrifying one. It signifies a change in how contemporary Westerners view and value life.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1312583107' post='2282111']

I meant it to be an analogy to what abortion is, in case that wasn't clear
[/quote]
Oh, your analogy was too interesting to me to be merely considered as an analogy, sorry, my mistake.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312581500' post='2282097']
I do agree people should not be oppressed but then how does one not classify the saying that there those who believe certain things, "religious outfits" which admittedly make up a large part of society (even if one does not think it is the majority), who should be kept out of civil life by "not interfering with law?" as oppression. I assume you mean "in the law-making process" when you say "law". However, if everyone is supposed to have a voice and you want to deny certain people a voice in the process, how is one not oppressing others/desire the removal of certain people's rights?
[/quote]
The individuals within the religious outfit have every right to vote. I am opposed to organisations influencing governments, I know rich corporations do it as well.
But I am also certainly opposed to religious beliefs being imposed on others outside of that belief. Religions tend to be exclusive not inclusive, hence given power they can easily oppress people. e.g. Outlawing gay lifestyles, outlawing gay marriage, introducing a specific religion's prayer in school assemblies etc.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312567635' post='2282008']Who is to decide what is wrong and right. There is no easy answer, no clearly defined, well understood objective standard. Philosophy gives no answers, merely a bunch of hypothetical what ifs. With regards to medical procedures our law clearly understands that if a person is unable to make difficult decisions for themselves then those difficult decisions are delegated to their guardians. Other than that delegation, the law ought not to interfere. Same thing goes for Euthanasia. In my opinion religious outfits ought not to interfere with law, fine for them to teach their followers what they think is right and wrong, but the followers ought to have the ability to excercise their free will.[/quote]

This statement is true. However, you need to understand that murder was not considered a medical procedure 40 years ago. Elective abortion kills an innocent, defenseless person. (Infants can't make decisions for themselves, but the law protects them - sometimes from the religious beliefs of their parents.) The same thing goes for killing adults. Calling it euthanasia and involving medical professionals doesn't change anything - it's murder. One generation ago the law protected the most defenseless individuals. Now we are supposed to decide for ourselves who is valuable and who isn't? And I'm supposed to allow my neighbors to decide to kill their child or grandparent because they think caring for them would be a burden? Where is the line?

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312641763' post='2282407']
This statement is true. However, you need to understand that murder was not considered a medical procedure 40 years ago. Elective abortion kills an innocent, defenseless person. (Infants can't make decisions for themselves, but the law protects them - sometimes from the religious beliefs of their parents.) The same thing goes for killing adults. Calling it euthanasia and involving medical professionals doesn't change anything - it's murder. One generation ago the law protected the most defenseless individuals. Now we are supposed to decide for ourselves who is valuable and who isn't? And I'm supposed to allow my neighbors to decide to kill their child or grandparent because they think caring for them would be a burden? Where is the line?
[/quote]
i understand you concerns, especially on abortion, not so much on euthanasia. But I do understand, hence I am not going to fight with you which side of the argument is right and which is wrong.
Personally I do not have such a black and white perspective on murder. I think putting down a repeat child molesterer is a good thing. With regards to Euthanasia I don't see any point in needless human suffering. If an animal was terminal and in agony we tend to humanly end their lives. Why not for people? Especially those people that have the ability to ask for it? Why should merciful doctors be treated as criminals?
Abortion is harder to defend. But I do think some major issues can be detected in the foetus and these issue can devistate a family, finacially and lifestyle wise. They can also collectively take a huge toll on society. Is it murder? sure is. Is it convenience? Yes. But as humans we often have to make some very difficult decisions. So although I am for pro choice on this, I can certainly understand your strong stance against it.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312580044' post='2282081']
An all powerful god would not need your love
[/quote]

Yes, an all powerfull, perfect, complete god has no requirements.
Given this, it seems odd to me that this god would have choosen to create existence.

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312580044' post='2282081']
I just don't understand how you envision standing up to or rejecting (please forgive my paraphrasing) an all powerful god after you die.
[/quote]
I am finding it difficult to answer this is a way that you can understand my answer.
Basically nothing is known about this god, including whether it exists or not. So the answer is that once I make it to the afterlife (in the unlikely event) I would then need to take time to assess my new environment before I am able to act in a way I deem to be appropriate. I am not one to roll over to authority just becasue it has power over me. I will not accept an unjust god. If god is unjust, I will be defiant in which ever way I can.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312659422' post='2282521']

Personally I do not have such a black and white perspective on murder. I think putting down a repeat child molesterer is a good thing. With regards to Euthanasia I don't see any point in needless human suffering. If an animal was terminal and in agony we tend to humanly end their lives. Why not for people? Especially those people that have the ability to ask for it? Why should merciful doctors be treated as criminals?

[/quote]

I'm against the death penalty for completely different reasons - mostly because (1) Black people are more like to be murdered by the government for crimes that would send a White person to prison and (2) too many innocent people are sentenced to death. Don't get me wrong though, I'd probably have a difficult time not killing a repeat child molester myself if given the opportunity.

I don't think human suffering is needless, I don't think murder is merciful. Most people that want to die feel so because they are depressed - I'd rather aid their mental state than end their physical state. In my opinion, suicide is a permanent fix to a temporary problem.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312659917' post='2282525']

Yes, an all powerfull, perfect, complete god has no requirements.
Given this, it seems odd to me that this god would have choosen to create existence.
[/quote]
me too. sometimes I think we are evidence of His sense of humor.
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312659917' post='2282525']
I am finding it difficult to answer this is a way that you can understand my answer.
Basically nothing is known about this god, including whether it exists or not. So the answer is that once I make it to the afterlife (in the unlikely event) I would then need to take time to assess my new environment before I am able to act in a way I deem to be appropriate. I am not one to roll over to authority just becasue it has power over me. I will not accept an unjust god. If god is unjust, I will be defiant in which ever way I can.
[/quote]
How do you define justice in this context?

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312660416' post='2282528']
me too. sometimes I think we are evidence of His sense of humor.
[/quote]

This does seem like a cop out. If you think philisophically that you can prove god, then I would certainly suggest that the unnecessary creation of existence by an all perfect, all complete, no requirements necessary god, would prove philisophically that god does not exist and did not creat existence

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312624840' post='2282366']
The individuals within the religious outfit have every right to vote. I am opposed to organisations influencing governments, I know rich corporations do it as well.
But I am also certainly opposed to religious beliefs being imposed on others outside of that belief. Religions tend to be exclusive not inclusive, hence given power they can easily oppress people. e.g. Outlawing gay lifestyles, outlawing gay marriage, introducing a specific religion's prayer in school assemblies etc.
[/quote]

The problem is that the "religious outfits" that you describe are not like corporations. Churches are their parishioners in a way that corporations are not their employees. Corporations hold influence through money donated to campaigns of specific candidates in hopes that their "opinions are swayed" when the candidate has to vote. This is very different than how a church must influence laws. Churches influence voters who vote for candidates and write to their law-makers concerning specific issues. The individuals are the Church in this way and as such to say that "the outfits" should not influence government is literally to say there are some people who should not partake in the law-making process. This seems to be the very oppression you seek to avoid. Also, it seems problematic, if not impossible, to relegate one's religious life to an "outfit" and then one's civil life to one's free-will and conscience if one takes both religious and civil life seriously. I hear the phrase often that "I am personally opposed but can't inflict my opinion on others" when people speak of abortion, but no one ever speaks this way on other issues such as health-care, welfare for the poor, prostitution, or the death penalty. As such, it seems disingenuous to me when it is used for abortion if one truly personally considers it to be the taking of innocent human life. One cannot box off sections of one's life where one's conscience dictates one thing and turn around and say that though it is wrong the government must allow it. This is an intellectually impossible position to hold.

The distinction with abortion concerning the not imposing religious beliefs on others is that the so named "pro-life" position that abortion is wrong is not a religious belief but a philosophic conclusion based on biology and the philosophic understandings of human dignity, inherent human value, and personhood. As such, this position does not fall under the general and right maxim that religion should not be forced on others. Also, I disagree that religions as religions tend to be exclusive and oppressive in any way more than an other organization that is in some way a human institution. In fact, I would argue that secular sectarian governments are more oppressive in that they have no recourse to a moral or defensible ethical maxim that says one should not oppress others in the name of "progress." Read the progressives of the early 19th Century. Woodrow Wilson and many other progressives speak this way because they have no understanding of an inherent human dignity that would extend to those that they would classify as barbarians or in need of Western Progress. This manner of speech was toned back with the rise of fascist governments but their speeches still give great examples of the logic. Religions, however, by in large have the maxims and dogmas concerning the inherent dignity of human life that cannot be violated in the name of "progress" and so they can be steered back on course should they deviate from them.

It seems though that we are just going around in circles though about oppression. However I will try to illustrate my point one more time that saying that "those who are of a Church and act as Church should not participate in the law-making process" does in fact oppress a group of people because of a specific view that they hold? This takes the Anglican law that no Catholic can hold a seat in English National Government and simply expands it to all religions and people of religions who take those religions seriously. It is oppression and it is not some intellectually plausible outcome but is happening. This is happening not far from where I live. I currently go to graduate school out in California and one of the Mayoral candidates for San Francisco is trying to get certain ads that pop up on google for pro-life medical centers when one searches for abortion. He wants to censor part of the internet to silence a group with a specific opinion that wants its position heard equally with its counter position so that each individual can make up his or her own mind. This trend of silencing specific opinions one opposes can also be seen in the erosion of conscience clauses or their exclusion in laws so that those with specific religious objections are coerced into violating their beliefs. Rather than protecting religious belief from interference, the new maxim that religious views should be kept out of government, is serving to confine religion to an unrealistic box where is affects nothing and force others not to act on their beliefs.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312674508' post='2282631']
This does seem like a cop out. If you think philisophically that you can prove god, then I would certainly suggest that the unnecessary creation of existence by an all perfect, all complete, no requirements necessary god, would prove philisophically that god does not exist and did not creat existence[/quote]

I'm on my phone, so I can't link the web page defining logical fallacies. Either I misunderstand your point or your argument fails to meet standards of logic.

What exactly is the cop out? My comment about God having a sense of humor was, ironically, a product of my sense of humor. The fact that God didn't have to create us in no way proves that he doesn't exist.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312677889' post='2282645']
I'm on my phone, so I can't link the web page defining logical fallacies. Either I misunderstand your point or your argument fails to meet standards of logic.

What exactly is the cop out? My comment about God having a sense of humor was, ironically, a product of my sense of humor. The fact that God didn't have to create us in no way proves that he doesn't exist.
[/quote]
So god does things for no reason, no purpose?

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312674559' post='2282632']
However I will try to illustrate my point one more time that saying that "those who are of a Church and act as Church should not participate in the law-making process" does in fact oppress a group of people because of a specific view that they hold? [/quote]
People belonging to religions should be able to vote, just like everyone else.